Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problems with Paraphilias in the DSM-5

  • Sexual Disorders (JP Fedoroff, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Psychiatry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper critiques changes in the diagnositic criteria for the paraphilias as set out in the DSM-5. In addition to general areas of concern, five specific problem areas are identified. This includes: definitions by exclusion; culturally based criteria; ignoring etiology; minimizing consent issues; and lack of field trials. A suggestion to improve the diagnostic criteria is offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. •• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. This is the most recent attempt by the American Psychiatric Association to classify psychiatric disorders, including the paraphilias.

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organisation. ICD-10 classifications of mental and behavioural disorder: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. •• Fedoroff JP. Forensic and diagnostic concerns arising from the proposed DSM-5 criteria for sexual paraphilic disorder. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2011;39:238–41. Published before the DSM-5 criteria were finalized, this article focuses specifically on the new paraphilia diagnoses proposed for the DSM-5 and reviews proposed revisions to existing paraphilia diagnoses. The author then suggests a new approach for organizing the paraphilias in a manner that captures variability in the specifiers.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fedoroff JP. The Paraphilias. In: Gelder MG, Andereasen NC, Lopez-Iber Jr JJ, Beddes JR, editors. The new Oxford textbook of psychiatry. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 832–42. 4.11.3.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Moser C, Kleinplatz PJ. DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: an argument for removal. J Psychol Hum Sex. 2005;17(3/4):91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, text revision. Washington, DS: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Hirschfeld M. The transvestites: the erotic drive to cross-dress. Prometheus Books; translated by Michael A. Lombardi-Nash. 1910.

  8. •• Fedoroff JP. Paraphilic worlds. In: Levine SB, editor. Handbook of clinical sexuality for mental health professionals, chapter 23. New York: Routledge; 2010. p. 401–24. A recent review of the nature of paraphilias including a comprehensive list of over 100 paraphilias described in the literature.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kingston DA, Seto MC, Ahmed AG, Fedoroff JP, Bradford JM. The role of central and peripheral hormones in sexual aggression and recidivism in sexual offenders. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2012;40:476–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fqqwq> retrieved on 2013-06-01.

  11. Frances A. DSM5 sexual disorders make no sense. Psychology Today. 2010a; http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/39514

  12. •• Kreuger RB, Kaplan MS. Paraphilic diagnoses in DSM-5. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2012;49:248–54. A comprehensive review of controversial aspects of the DSM-5 criteria for paraphilic disorders. Co-authored by a member of the APA Paraphilia Disorders workgroup.

    Google Scholar 

  13. First MB. DSM-5 proposals for paraphilias: suggestions for re-ducing false positives related to use of behavioral manifestations. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39(6):1239–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Singy P. What's wrong with sex? Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39:1231–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, third edition, text revision. Washington, DS: American Psychiatric Association; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  16. •• Fedoroff JP. Forensic and diagnostic concerns arising from the proposed DSM-5 criteria for sexual paraphilic disorder. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2011;39:238–41. This article focuses specifically on the new paraphilia diagnoses proposed for the DSM-5 and reviews proposed revisions to existing paraphilia diagnoses. The author then suggests a new approach for organizing the paraphilias in a manner that captures variability in the specifiers.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Blanchard R. Paraphilias vs. paraphilic disorders, pedophilia vs. pedo and hebephilia, and autogynephilic vs. fetishistic transvestism. Paper resented at the annual meeting of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research (2009a, April), Arlington, Virginia. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://individual.utoronto.ca/rayblanchard/indexfiles/SSTAR 2009 Talk on DSM.html

  18. Blanchard R. The DSM diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39:304–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. •• Fedoroff JP. Sadism, Sadomasochism, sex and violence. Can J Psychiatry. 2008;53:637–46. A recent review of sexual sadism with an emphasis on the difference between BDSM and true non-consensual sadism.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zander TK. Inventing diagnosis for civil commitment of rapists. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2008;36:459–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zonana H. Sexual disorders: new and expanded proposals for the DSM-5: Do we need them? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2011;9:345–9.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Halpern AL. The proposed diagnosis of hypersexual disorder for inclusion in DSM-5: unnecessary and harmful. Arch Sex Behav. 2011;40:487–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moser C. Hypersexual disorder: just more muddled thinking. Arch Sex Behav. 2011;40:227–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Blanchard R, Hucker SJ. Age, transvestism, bondage, and concurrent paraphilic activities in 117 fatal cases of autoerotic asphyxia. Br J Psychiatry. 1991;159(3):371–7. doi:10.1192/bjp.159.3.371. An important survey of the characteristics of individuals who died due to what is now known as asphyxophilia in the DSM-5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

J. Paul Fedoroff has in the past received payment for consulting from Janssen and has received grants from the University of Ottawa Medical Research Fund, The Canadian Institute of Health Research and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Research Foundation.

Lisha Di Gioacchino declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Lisa Murphy declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Integrated Forensic Program, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre; University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research, University of Ottawa, 1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1Z 7K4, Canada

    J. Paul Fedoroff

  2. Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, 75 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Lisha Di Gioacchino

  3. Sexual Behaviours Clinic, Integrated Forensic Program, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre; and Forensic Research Unit, University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research, 1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1Z 7K4, Canada

    Lisa Murphy

Authors
  1. J. Paul Fedoroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisha Di Gioacchino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Paul Fedoroff.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fedoroff, J.P., Di Gioacchino, L. & Murphy, L. Problems with Paraphilias in the DSM-5. Curr Psychiatry Rep 15, 363 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0363-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0363-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation